Surveys Galore is an outfit involved in conducting nationwide surveys. In one such survey, it asked the people about the degree of trust and confidence they had in several institutions of the government. When the results came in, the judiciary was shown to be less trusted than most of the government offices. The results were then published by the mass media. Assension, a trial court judge, felt particularly offended by the news. He then issued a show-cause order against Surveys Galore directing the survey entity to explain why it should not be cited in contempt for coming up with such a survey and publishing the results which were so unflattering and degrading to the dignity of the judiciary. Surveys Galore immediately assailed the show-cause order of Judge Assension, arguing that it is violative of the constitutional guaranty of freedom of expression. Is Surveys Galore’s petition meritorious? (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Yes, Surveys Galore's petition is meritorious. Under Cabansag vs Fernandez and In re Jurado, freedom of expression cannot be impaired through the contempt power unless the publication poses a clear and present danger of a
Unlock the full Political Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Cabansag v. Fernandez, when may speech be restricted through the judicial power of contempt?
Contempt power cannot restrict speech unless it presents a clear and present danger to the administration of justice.
What constitutional standard governs restrictions on freedom of expression regarding judicial proceedings?
The clear and present danger test is the governing constitutional standard for restricting speech about the judiciary.
Why is a trial judge's show-cause order for contempt against a survey entity publishing public trust results unconstitutional?
Punishing public interest survey reports via contempt without proving a clear and present danger violates free expression.
Does the potential to cause disrespect for the judiciary justify citing a media entity for indirect contempt?
Choices available with full access.
Under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, what type of speech is protected when publishing nationwide surveys on government trust?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Contempt Power Limits
The judicial power to punish for contempt is an inherent attribute of courts necessary to preserve authority and enforce justice. However, under Cabansag v. Fernandez and In re Jurado, this power must be exercised with extreme caution and restraint. The power to cite for contempt cannot be utilized to stifle public criticism or suppress protected speech regarding public institutions. Courts cannot penalize expressions merely because they offend judicial sensibilities, convey unflattering opinions, or induce public disfavor, provided the statements do not directly obstruct or impede the impartial administration of justice in a pending case.
2. Clear Danger Test
The clear and present danger test serves as the constitutional touchstone when evaluating whether speech may be lawfully punished through judicial contempt. Under this standard, expression may only be restricted if the evil consequence is extremely serious and the degree of imminence is extremely high. Publishing public opinion surveys regarding trust in the judiciary does not create a clear and present danger of a grave and imminent threat to the administration of justice. Broad concerns over judicial dignity or prestige fall far short of satisfying this rigorous constitutional requirement.
3. Public Interest Speech
Surveys evaluating public trust in government institutions, including the judiciary, involve matters of legitimate public interest and concern. Freedom of the press guarantees the right to gather, report, and disseminate information on public affairs without fear of judicial intimidation or retrospective punishment. A trial court judge cannot use a show-cause order to silence public scrutiny or penalize mass media organizations for reporting survey findings. Subjecting survey entities to contempt proceedings for publishing unflattering public opinion reports violates the constitutional guarantee of free expression under Section 4, Article III.